The Naturalistic Assumptions of Evolution and Modern Science!

By Dennis Edwards --

Very few people today realize that modern science is based on naturalistic assumptions. Modern science is based on the philosophy or belief system in naturalism. Naturalism is the belief or philosophy which states the following: First, only the natural exists. There is no metaphysical or supernatural. Second, everything can be explained as a result of random natural causes. These two axioms are the foundation stones upon which naturalism is built and of which the General Theory of Evolution is the outgrowth.

In the past science was defined as knowledge, or the search for knowledge, or the search for the truth of the how and the why of nature and the physical world around us. With this definition of science, scientist of the past did not separate their belief in God from their science. In fact, their science was an outgrowth of their belief in God. If there was a rational God who created a rational world then, scientists reasoned, they could search and find out the rationale that God used to uphold His creation. Like Kepler said, “We were merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”[1]

Because scientists believed in a rational creator they searched for the rationale behind the creation. Their belief in a Divine Creator did not deter their scientific investigation, but rather justified and enhanced their scientific inquiry. Indeed, their scientific inquiry was a result of their belief system and their belief system justified scientific inquiry and predicted the results: scientific discoveries of the laws of nature, physics, chemistry etc. In a purely naturalistic world, why should we expect that there be any laws of nature if everything is a result of random, uncaused processes? As C.S. Lewis expressed in the following quote:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.[2]

In other words, naturalism does not make sense. Nevertheless, it appealed to man’s baser instincts and therefore it took hold in the hearts and minds of the men who wanted to be free from the moral constraints of formalized religion and a God of retribution.

So we see, as a reaction to the moral restrictions imposed by the religious element of society in the 18th and 19th century and earlier, learned men, wishing to free themselves from the shackles of religiosity, began to oppose Biblical interpretations of nature. As an outgrowth of the Age of Reason, as opposed to the age where men accepted things by faith, because that is what the Church taught; and as a result of the political and social upheavals of the 18th century with the French and American Revolutions, enlighten thinkers began to promote naturalism. By the late 1700’s and early 1800’s naturalism made headway in the scientific community.

Scotland’s James Hutton’s book The Theory of the Earth promoted uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is the belief that only natural processes happening in the present can be used to explain the world around us and its past history. Hutton’s mantra was “the present is the key to the past.”[3] Later, Charles Lyle’s Principles of Geology published in 1830 built on Hutton’s ideas and propagated his naturalistic interpretations as the correct way to do science and interpret the world around us. Lyle’s goal was to get Moses out of science,[4] and he greatly succeeded. Lyle was a great friend of Darwin and continually encouraged him in his writing of the Origins, so much so, that Darwin confessed that it seemed like his ideas came from the mind of Lyle.

It was not long before the idea that all of life and natural occurrences could be explained by unguided natural forces without soliciting supernatural explanations. Biblical interpretations of past events, or catastrophism seemed childish. By 1855, four years before Charles Darwin published the Origins of the Species, we see Charles Spurgeon, the famous British Baptist evangelist admitting his acceptance of naturalistic assumptions. He said,

Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of the world was when Adam came upon it. But we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.[5]

Thomas Chalmers, the Scottish theologian and professor from the University of Edinburgh was the first to popularize the Gap theory early in the 19th century. He accepted the millions of years that both Hutton and Lyell propagated. Chalmers developed the theory mainly for the purpose of accommodating the great ages demanded by evolutionary geologists.[6] Natural theology became the popular theology of the day and was the idea that the science of nature was just as an important “revelation” as the scriptures themselves. The two could not contradict each other.

Rather than look for the weaknesses or faults in the scientific reasoning or assumptions, the 19th century man embraced naturalism as taught by Hutton and Lyle and abandoned the traditional Flood geology. Flood geology which had until then been the accepted method of explaining the geological features lost credibility and the atmosphere was ripe for Darwin’s ideas a few years later. Chalmers’ Bridgewater Treatise was published in two volumes in 1833 and went through 6 editions. His books were effectively an encyclopedia of pre-evolutionary natural history, commissioned and published whilst Charles Darwin was on board the Beagle.

The evolutionist Derek Ager in 1981 commenting on this period of history said the following:

My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (Hutton and Lyle) who were conditioned by social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field… In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes![7]

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Goule when writing about the Great Scablands debate said something similar.

The ‘establishment,’ as represented by the United States Geological Society (a modern day scientific organization), closed ranks in opposition (to a scientist’s interpretation of the geological features that supported catastrophic and therefore Biblical processes)…. Instead of testing Bretz’s flood on its own merits, they rejected it on general principles… Bretz stood against a firm, highly restrictive dogma (uniformitarianism) that never had made any sense: the emperor had been naked for a century. Charles Lyell, the godfather of geological gradualism (uniformitarianism), had pulled a fast one in establishing the doctrine of imperceptible change (uniformitarianism).[8]

Here we see that it was not scientific dating methods that gave us the millions of year, not scientific observations in the field, but theoreticians who had rejected the traditional Biblical analysis of the geological column. The acceptance of millions of years came before any modern day scientific dating methods. Such dating methods proofs were similar to Dr. Jan Baptista von Helmont’s experiment proving that Aristotle’s idea of spontaneous generation was true.[9] His experiment was merely verification. He placed dirty underwear and wheat in an open jar in a corner of the home and left it for two weeks. At the end of which he found adult mice in the jar and concluded that spontaneous generation was true. Today’s modern dating methods all too often fall under this outrageous category. They assume the millions of years and then seek a method that confirms that assumption and are oblivious to any evidence which contradicts or calls into question the conclusions or initial assumptions that were made.

By the middle of the 19th century Biblical interpretations began to be seen as infantile or at least unscientific. Naturalism became accepted as the philosophy of science and religion. Men rejected traditional Biblical interpretations, though few men admitted that it was because of the restrictive moral implications forced on society by the religious institutions. Nevertheless, from the time of the French Revolution there was a new awakening in man’s desire to be a free moral agent, an agent who followed his own dictates rather than those imposed upon him by ancient religious institutions. Men wanted to be free from the laws of touch not, taste not, think not, etc. Religion was seen by many as a hindrance to intellectual progress and, therefore, political and scientific progress. Naturalism was embraced because it eliminated God from scientific inquiry and at the same time freed man from the moral confines that religion demanded. If the world around us could be explained by purely naturalistic means, man would not need to invoke the help of the supernatural and could in a sense free himself from its moral restrictions. Man could be free to act and behave according to his own dictates and not to those of a book written thousands of years before to an entirely different culture and people. These underlining reasons helped lead to the rejection of Biblical interpretations.

Later in the 20th century, we see an interesting confession by Aldous Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter. Grandfather Thomas Huxley had done much to help defend the evolutionary theory at its beginnings and is credited to winning the famous Evolution/Creation debate with abolitionist William Wilberforce. Thomas Huxley did more to defend evolution than Darwin himself and became known as Darwin’s Bulldog. However, he was not totally convinced of Darwin’s mechanism for evolution. Later in 1960, grandson Aldous spoke honestly about his own hidden agenda.

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world (and this is what evolution ultimately teaches) is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do (moral freedom is the goal, to be free from religion’s restrictive confines). For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.[10]

So here we see Aldous Huxley, one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century, confessing that his rejection of a creator and his support of atheistic/naturalistic philosophy stemmed from his desire for sexual liberty. The apostle Peter in prophetic words had said the following:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.’ (This is what uniformitarianism preaches that the present natural processes are the same as those that have been in the past.) For this they are willing ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.[2Peter 3:3-6]

In other words, they are willingly ignorant of the creation act by God and the historical global catastrophic flood of Noah.

What has happened down through the centuries is that the false hypocritical religious systems have driven men from God. As men rejected God, they became proud in mind and their foolish hearts were darkened.[Romans 1:21] Professing themselves to be wise, they in fact became fools believing in the illogical and contradictory.[Romans 1:22] Instead of man being made in God’s image, we became descendants of creeping things, birds and four-footed beats, the Theory of Evolution. Saint Paul prophetically predicts the very same in his letter to the Romans.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.[Romans 1:21-23]

Most people today do not realize they have bought into naturalistic assumptions by accepting the Big Bang and the General Theory of Evolution. Naturalism is so strongly accepted into our society, we no longer reject its tenants conscientiously. We do not realize that the scientific models that we are taught as truths are those models that assume naturalistic assumptions and steer clear of Biblical ones. These models assume there is no metaphysical. They assume that past events can be explained by random natural forces happening today. By changing the definition of science to mean natural processes by which we can explain the world around us, modern day science has eliminated God from the discussion and conned mankind into accepting its naturalistic philosophy without mankind even realizing it.

Let´s take a look at the Big Bang Theory as an example. When formulating their model of the beginning of the universe evolutionists steer clear of anything which validates the Biblical framework. In the Biblical framework we would expect to find our galaxy near to the center of the universe. We would expect to find the universe expanding from that central region. Dr. Russell Humphreys has made such a model and has found some interesting discoveries concerning distant starlight, time and gravity.[15] His model postulates the possibility, because of gravities affect on time, of time passing slower on earth than at the end of the universe. He speculates that although billions of years could have passed at the far distant end of the universe, it could be possible that only six thousand years of earth time passed here on our planet. In choosing his model, Dr. Humphreys starts with a universe with a center and with our galaxy near that center. That would put our galaxy near the gravitational center of the universe. Since it is an established fact that gravity effects time and causes time to pass more slowly, time on earth would be expected to pass slower than time at the outer fringes of the universe where the universes gravitational well would have a much weaker affect. Dr. Humphreys’ universe also has an edge.

However, evolutionists when doing their model of the beginning of the universe avoid those two assumptions made by Dr. Humphreys: the universe has a center and our galaxy is near that center, and the universe has an edge. Internationally renowned astrophysicist George FR Ellis explains it in the following manner:

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that can explain the observations .... For instance, I can construct a spherically symmetric universe for you with Earth at its center, and you cannot prove otherwise based on observations, (that it is wrong) ....you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide it.[16]

Ellis is admitting that evolutionists exclude a model like Dr. Humphreys’ because of philosophical reasons. They exclude it because it would give credence to the Biblical story, not because the evidence negates it. The fact is that the evidence supports Dr. Humphreys’ model over the traditional Big Bang model, but because of its Biblical ramifications, Dr. Humphreys’ model is ignored.

Evolutionist Professor of Genetics Richard Lewontin made a similar confession of evolutionist’s anti-Biblical bias. He said,

We take the side of evolutionary science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.[17]

Modern science is full of naturalistic assumptions which are contrary to reality. Because of modern man’s bias against God the naturalistic assumptions are assumed to be true without scientific evidence to back them up. It’s about time we re-evaluate the state of modern science’s condition. Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed, questions modern science’s bias and dictatorial control of modern thinking.[18] Dave Schoch in his book, The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution, has said the following:

The truth can only be made up of facts, not assumptions. We should not be teaching assumptions as facts to our children, especially a theory that only stands upon one assumption after another.[19]

It is about time we take a closer look at our educational and scientific community and see exactly what’s going on. Future generations are dependent on us standing up for our convictions and exposing the false evolutionary doctrine for the mythological hocus-pocus that it is. Let’s get back to true scientific investigation without bias and prejudice whatever form it may take. The future of our children and the world depends upon it!

[1] http://www.icr.org/article/thinking-gods-thoughts-after-him/

[2] http://creation.com/cs-lewis-on-materialistic-thoughts
[3] http://www.thebrpage.net/theanswer/?article=james_hutton_(1727-1797)
[4] http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses
[5]John Morris: http://www.icr.org/article/826/174/
[6]Gap Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism
[7] Derek Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, 1981, pg. 46-47.
[8] Stephen Jay Gould, The Great Scablands Debate, Natural History, Vol. 87:7 (Aug.Sep 1978) pg. 12 & 14.
[9] Evolution: the Grand Experiment, page 12.
[10] Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19.
[11] 2Peter 3:3-6
[12] Romans 1:21
[13] Romans 1:22
[14] Romans 1:21-23
[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU
[16] http://evidencepress.com/short-answers/are-we-in-the-center-of-the-universe/
[17] http://evidencepress.com/short-answers/are-we-in-the-center-of-the-universe/
[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
[19] Dave Schoch, The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution, pg.

Originally published August 25, 2014

Read More

Greg Koukl Answering Alex O'Conner on Whether Meaning is Psychological

Answering Alex O’Connor on Whether Meaning Is Just Psychological

 Speaking with atheist Alex O’Connor on The Diary of a CEO, Greg Koukl argues that humanity’s search for meaning reflects more than a psychological need. It reveals an awareness of something transcendent.

Transcript

Greg: We are aware of all kinds of different options for us spiritually. That doesn’t necessarily suggest that none of the options are actually accurate.

Alex: I’m making a psychological case.

Greg: So, there’s an implication there, and this is what creates kind of the angst because all we have is our own personal, subjective point of view.

Alex: I think that’s why people experience that. Now, of course, as a matter of truth, you could say—for example, yourself—you could say, yes, I’m constantly confronted by different religious traditions, but I believe that Christianity is true—I think has the best evidence and whatnot.

Greg: This is even true in even in the scientific realm. All kinds of different ideas, but no one wants to say—just because there are so many different ideas to explain things—that nobody can be correct.

Alex: Which is why what I’m saying is insensitive to the truth or falsity of any of the traditions. What I’m saying is—

Greg: Okay. That’s good, because I want to go to that next.

Alex: As an explanation for the psychological phenomenon—the literal feeling that people have. Because, likewise, you would say that there is a meaning crisis. You would say that lots of people—the statistics we just heard—you would say lots of people, you know, don’t feel meaning in their life, and you’d want to offer an explanation for why that’s the case. You think their lives are meaningful, right? You think that all of those people who say, “My life has no meaning,” they’re wrong. Their lives actually do have meaning.

Steven Bartlett: Is that what you think?

Greg: Well, this was the subjective response. They feel like they don’t have meaning, but they were made for a purpose. If they’re not in in touch with that meaning and purpose, then they’re going to feel bereft and adrift.

Alex: Exactly. So, you believe there really is a purpose for their life, but, subjectively, they haven’t either found it or they don’t feel it. What I’m doing is I’m offering a psychological explanation for why they don’t feel it, which is completely insensitive to whether or not there’s a truth of the matter.

Greg: I’m so glad you put it that way because this is exactly my point. I don’t want anybody to miss it. We’re really offering two different pictures of reality here, okay? People have to ask themselves two questions, I think. One is, they reflect on their own personal awareness of the need for meaning and significance. Does it seem to them that this is just a psychological thing that people can satisfy in all kinds of different ways depending on the individual, or does it seem to them, I’m asking these questions because I suspect there is a truth about life that might be discovered? Okay. That’s the first question. And I think most people’s awareness of this is that there’s something transcendent—something bigger than them. Okay? And any kind of naturalistic explanation is not going to ultimately satisfy that. The other thing is, is there any reason to believe that there is a transcendent reality—that God exists, that souls exist, that there is an objective morality that guides our life, and if we’re living virtuously, that’s going to be satisfying even if we don’t believe in God or not? Those are the two things at stake here, you know?

And now, this description—the story of reality I just described that I hold to—it seems to me completely coherent. Maybe not true, but it certainly is coherent—that if there is a God who made us for himself and places eternity in our hearts, that we’re going to yearn for that. And he made the way for us to live, and then we’re going to find good ways to live as opposed to unsatisfying ways to live. That makes sense. Doesn’t make any sense to me at all to say that my molecules are moving in a certain way to create in my conscious mind—which Darwinism cannot offer an explanation for. It hasn’t. That’s why Daniel Dennett said consciousness is an illusion, you know? Because he couldn’t do anything with it. Thomas Nagel wrote his book Mind and Cosmos (you’re familiar with this, I’m sure) on why the neo-Darwinian, materialistic view of the world is almost certainly false (and he’s an atheist, for goodness’ sake) because he can’t explain consciousness, not in a Darwinian way. So, how is it that this mystery of consciousness, which contains propositional thoughts, ideas, and purposes—if consciousness can’t be explained a Darwinian way—how can some characterization of molecules in motion accomplish that same end? That’s my concern. This is why I’m not convinced at all about the naturalist one, and this one seems so much more plausible.

Read More

The Sad Commentary of Astronomer Robert Jastrow

By Dennis Edwards

Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) was a disciple of Edwin Hubble the famous American astronomer whose interpretation of the red shift in light from distant galaxies gave rise to the Big Bang Theory. After Hubble died, Jastrow continued with much of Hubble’s work.  A few years ago Jastrow wrote a book called God and the Astronomers. In an interview about his faith, or lack of it, he makes an interesting observation. He starts by talking about the implications of the Hubble’s red-shift. Read for yourself from his own words:

“If you reverse the motion, the outward motions of the stars and galaxies and go backwards in time, they come closer and closer together. Finally, they reach a point where they are nearly infinite in density and temperature and further than that you cannot go. So, there’s a beginning, a point in time from which it all started. That’s a remarkable thing. It has a strong theological flavor to it, which intrigued me, because I am an agnostic. But if there was a beginning, a moment of creation of the universe, then there was a creator. But a creator is not compatible with agnosticism. I found that point so interesting, that I felt a strong compulsion to share it with others.

"That’s why I wrote the book. Just like I can’t believe there was a creator, I can’t believe that this all happened by chance, which implies, there was a creator. So you see, I am in a completely hopeless bind and I have stayed there. Again, I find it hard to believe that this is all a matter of atoms and molecules. So, I try to fit into my concept of the world the conclusion that there is a larger force of some kind which we can call God, or whatever. But I can’t accept that, because I’m a materialist in philosophy. I believe the world consists entirely of material substances (and no supernatural causes). When you specify those substances and the laws of how they interact, you have done it all. Nothing more needs to be said.

"That’s what science tells me. I have been a scientist all my life. But I find it unsatisfactory, in fact, it makes me uneasy. I feel I am missing something. But I will not find out what I am missing within my lifetime.”[1]

So here we see Robert Jastrow, who worked with Hubble on the Hubble Telescope, making an incredible confession. He’s been a materialist, an atheist, an agnostic, which is a type of atheism, all his life. Now he is coming to the end of his life and he’s having  doubts about the world view he has held all his life. He’s looked at the idea of the Big Bang, a naturalistic origin theory, and the fact that there was a beginning point bothers him. He concludes that “If there is a beginning point, then there must be a cause for why the universe came into existence. If there is a cause then it seems probable that the cause could be a Creator God." But the idea of a Creator God is contrary to Jastrow’s materialistic world view. And yet he has found his materialistic world view to be unsatisfying. However, even though his mind and conscience are leading him to reject the world view he has held all his life and embrace a world view with a Creator God, he’s not able to. He’s caught in the atheistic, agnostic mindset which gave him freedom to forget about God and believe and do whatever he wanted to do.

We don’t know how his world view affected his morality and his sexual life. The famous intellectual and writer of the 20th century Aldous Huxley candidly confessed that he chose the atheististic, materialistic, naturalistic world view because he wanted his sexual and moral freedom. Robert Jastrow doesn’t talk about that aspect of his life, but he talks about being captured in a philosophical atheistic world view or mindset, and although he no longer feels comfortable there, he is unable to make the jump to faith. He's not able to accept the belief that the universe was created and not just a result of purposelessness.  Here he is coming to the end of his life and he senses that the world view he’s followed all his life has fallen short. But he’s caught and he’s not able to make the jump to faith, to a world view with a Creator God.

 It’s a really sad commentary, a really sad statement. Please don’t make the same mistake that he made. Ask God to break you out of any kind of chains or mindset that are not of Him. Apostle Peter wrote, “Where they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.” The evil spirits and demonic doctrines of men capture us and bind our thoughts so that later on when we come to the end of our lives and we see the futility of our atheism, or the futility of our naturalism and we want to break free, we can’t, because we are caught in a web of deceit. We are caught by false concepts. We are caught by our pride and we’re unable to make that leap to faith.

I remember the story of the famous WWII war hero British Field Marshall Montgomery who led the combined Allied forces during the initial part of the D - Day Campaign. When Montgomery was coming to the end of his life, he, too, was feeling apprehensive. After the war when he gotten all the glory and fame his conscience didn’t bother him. It was fine then to get the praise of man. “Hail, Monty!” It was wonderful and his conscience didn’t bothered him one bit. But at the end of his life, at 88 years of age, he’s getting close to the end of his life and he’s not able to sleep at night. His conscience is bothering him. He calls up his best friend and says, “Hey, you’ve got to come over and talk to me.  I know I am going to die soon and I’m not able to sleep, because I don’t know what I’m going to tell God about all those young lads that died under my command. I don’t have a good argument to give Him.”

What at one point was all GLORY, now he is seeing it in a different perspective. His conscience is weighing on him and he’s wondering how is he going to justify all those deaths of those young British soldiers who died under his command. When we get to the end of our lives, we start reflecting a little bit more deeply on the decisions we have made and the events of our lives. We see our mistakes sometimes more clearly than we did when we were younger. They attack us in the quiet moments or at night when we can’t sleep and come at us like waves of doubts, almost drowning us in dispair. let's hope that Montgomery's friend was able to bring Monty to real faith in Christ who promises to forgive all our iniquities.

I am reminded of the story in the New Testament where the Pharisees  brought to Jesus a woman who had been taken in adulery, in the very act. The Pharisees had brought the woman to Jesus to see how he would judge her. According to the Law of Moses she was to be stoned to death. But Jesus very wisely answered, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” And the passage very correctly goes on to say that they, the Pharisees, when out one by one beginning at the eldest even to the youngest. The younger ones were ready to cast the stone because they felt they could justifiably kill that woman, since she was a sinner anyway. Whereas the older men knew that they would be seeing their Maker soon. The knew they needed God’s forgiveness. The sins of their lives were laying heavy on them as they reached the end of their lives. They knew they were soon going to have to face their Maker. But the younger men were not thinking about death and they were ready to stone the woman and “Get rid of that sinner.”

Please, think about these things and call out to God for help to get over your lack of faith, or your agnosticismo, or skepticism, or doubts. Reach out for Him as He’s not far from any one of us, for in Him we do live and move and have are being. And He will come as He has promised. Please, call upon Him in Jesus’s name. Just say, “Come, Lord Jesus, I open my heart, show me the way wherein I should walk. Deliver me! Help me! Rescue me!”

Saint Augustine said, “Seek not to understand that you may believe, but seek to believe that you may understand.” Seek that God would increase your faith, strengthen your belief in Him and enlighten your understanding. Jesus said it was not only necessary to hear the Word of God, which brings faith, but to understand it. So let us ask God to open our understanding of His Word! King David prayed, “Open Thou my eyes that I may behold wonderous thing out of Thy law.” Let us let God’s love come into our hearts. Let us let God’s understanding come into our minds, by calling upon Him by faith. And let faith work on our hearts and on our minds so that we can see things a new. Let us continue reading, studying and meditating on God’s Word, because if we do, we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. Then we will be able to say like C. S. Lewis “By Him I can see and understand everything else.”

---

[1] The Privileged Planet, http://www.theprivilegedplanet.com/scientists.php

Read More

Ravi Zacharias - How do we challenge this generation?

Read More

The Naturalistic Assumptions of Evolution and Modern Science!

by Dennis Edwards: 

Very few people today realize that modern science is based on naturalistic assumptions. Modern science is based on the philosophy or belief system of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief or philosophy which states the following:

1. Only the natural exists. There is no metaphysical or supernatural.

2. Everything can be explained as a result of random natural causes.

The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary states it in a similar way: “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.”[1]These are the foundation stones upon which naturalism is built and of which the General Theory of Evolution is the outgrowth.

In the past science was defined as knowledge, or the search for knowledge or the search for the truth of the how and the why of nature and the physical world around us. Using the search for knowledge and truth as their definition of science, scientist of the past did not separate their belief in God from their science. In fact, their science was an outgrowth of their belief in God.

If there was a rational God who created a rational world then, scientists reasoned, they could search and find out the rationale that God used to uphold His creation. Like Kepler said, “We were merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”[2] Because scientists believed in a rational creator, they searched for the rationale behind the creation. Their belief in a Divine Creator did not deter their scientific investigation, but rather justified and enhanced their scientific inquiry. Indeed, their scientific inquiry was a result of their belief system and their belief system justified scientific inquiry and predicted the results: scientific discoveries of the laws of nature, physics, chemistry etc. Kepler went on to say, “I had the intention of becoming a theologian… but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for ‘the heavens declare the glory of God.’”[3]

Today we see how the definition of science has shifted in favor of the naturalistic interpretation of life. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines science as “a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.”[4]

But how can we examine the events of life’s origins through the scientific method? We cannot to go back in time and watch the beginning events and put them through experimentation. Rather, we speculate about the past and do our science in the present, where it only can be done. We then extrapolate backwards in time and see if our speculation matches the data or evidence from the past, which we have here in the present. Both scientists who believe in creation and those who believe in evolution use speculation about past events in their science. Some scientists prefer to name such speculative science as historical or origins science. It is philosophical in nature because it starts with philosophical assumptions which then affect the interpretation of the data or evidence.

However, in a purely naturalistic world, why should we expect that there be any laws of nature, if everything is a result of random, non-caused processes as evolutionist claim? C.S. Lewis, the famous author and atheist turned Christian, put forth the following question. “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”[5] In other words, naturalism does not make sense. It doesn´t give us the deep answers that we seek for. Nevertheless, it appeals to man’s baser instincts and therefore it took hold on the hearts and minds of men wanting to be free from the moral constraints of formalized religion and a God of retribution.

Throughout history we see reactions against the moral constraints placed upon society by religious institutions. The Reformation and the political revolutions that followed were an outgrowth of the political, social and moral restrictions placed on European man by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages and its Inquisition. As a result of the new Protestantism, another set of moral restrictions fell upon the shoulders of man. Cromwell in the 17th century had even tried to change laws in accordance to Biblical principles. The Swiss had also tried their hand at Protestant political and social rule under John Calvin and others in the mid-1500’s.

By the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, learned men wishing to free themselves from the shackles of religiosity, began to oppose Biblical interpretations of nature. The opposition to the Bible was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason or Enlightenment, as opposed to the previous ages where men accepted things by faith, because that is what the Church had taught. Therefore, it was before and during the political and social upheavals of the 18th century, the French and American Revolutions, when enlighten thinkers began to promote naturalism, in both science and theology.

Thomas Paine’s booklet the Age of Reason was published in 1794. In it he laid out his personal creed which was available to the elite of that day and was influential in France, England and the USA. On page fifty of the booklet he states the following:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church,(He mentions the Turkish Church because this was during the period of the Ottoman Empire.) by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.[6]

We can see that by the late 1700’s and early 1800’s naturalism made headway in the scientific and theological or intellectual community. Scotland’s James Hutton had published his book The Theory of the Earth in 1788 which promoted uniformitarianism, the belief that only natural processes happening in the present could be used to explain the world around us and its past history. Hutton’s mantra was “the present is the key to the past.” Later, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology published in 1830 built on Hutton’s ideas and propagated his naturalistic interpretations as the correct way to do science and interpret the world around us. Lyell’s goal was to get Moses out of science, and he greatly succeeded. His geological tome was the most important scientific geological work of the first half of the 19th century. Hutton and Lyell’s ideological opinions had affected their scientific beliefs, observations and conclusions and the society as a whole.

Before long the idea that all of life and natural occurrences could be explained by unguided natural forces became the accepted scientific and theological doctrine. No longer was there need to solicit the supernatural for explanations. Naturalistic theology began to dominate Biblical interpretations of past events. By 1855, four years before Charles Darwin published the Origins of the Species, we see Charles Spurgeon, the famous British Baptist evangelist admitting his acceptance of naturalistic assumptions and millions of years. He said, “Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of the world was when Adam came upon it. But we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”[7]

It was the Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers, in the 1830’s, who first popularized the gap theory mainly for the purpose of accommodating the great ages demanded by uniformitarian geologists like Hutton.[8] Hutton’s natural geology opposed the tradition Flood geology. Chalmers’ new theology was called natural theology and placed the millions of years demanded by the uniformitarian view between Genesis verses 1 and 2, contrary to the Bible–based Flood geology of the past and the traditional literal interpretation of Genesis as just a 6-day creation where no millions of years were required.[9]

Gap creationism became increasingly attractive because it allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of natural theology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two could not contradict each other.[10] Whereas in the past, scripture had been before science, now science came before scripture. Science became the ultimate authority over the Bible.

Gap creationist Thomas Chalmers was also “a professor at the University of Edinburgh, and founder of the Free Church of Scotland. His Bridgewater Treatise, in the series On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man, appeared in two volumes in 1833 and went through 6 editions. These books effectively represent an encyclopedia of pre-evolutionary natural history, commissioned and published whilst Charles Darwin was on board The Beagle. In the area of natural theology and the Christian evidences Chalmers advocated the method of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with the indefinite antiquity of the globe.”[11] So we see a large part of the intellectual and religious society in Britain prior to Darwin had already capitulated to accepting the millions of years necessary for evolution.

In 1981 the atheistic evolutionist Derek Ager commented on the pre-evolution period of history when he wrote, “My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that I have been trying to show how I think geology got into the hands of the theoreticians (Hutton, Lyell and Chalmers amongst others) who were conditioned by social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field…” “In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘castastrophic’ processes!” [12]

Dr. James Shea, editor of the Journal of Geological Education, wrote in 1982: “Furthermore, much of Lyell’s uniformitarianism, specifically his ideas on identity of ancient and modern cause, gradualism, and constancy of rate, has been explicitly refuted by the definitive modern sources as well as by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, as substantive theories, his ideas on these matters were simply wrong.”[13]

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) when writing about the Great Scablands debate, an argument of whether or not an ancient flood had caused the Scabland deposits, said something similar. “The ‘establishment,’ as represented by the United States Geological Society (a modern day scientific organization), closed ranks in opposition (to a scientist’s interpretation of a geological feature, the Great Scablands, because it hinted of Biblical Flood Geology)…. Instead of testing Bretz’s flood (module) on its own merits, they rejected it on general principles… Bretz stood against a firm, highly restrictive dogma (belief system-uniformitarianism) that never had made any sense: the emperor had been naked for a century. Charles Lyell, the godfather of geological gradualism (uniformitarianism), had pulled a fast one in establishing the doctrine of imperceptible change (uniformitarianism).”[14]

Therefore, we see that it was not scientific dating methods that gave us the millions of years, not scientific observations in the field, but theoreticians who had rejected the traditional Biblical analysis of the geological column. The acceptance of millions of years came before any modern day scientific dating methods were developed and was not a result of observation in the field but was a doctrinal decision made before viewing and interpreting the strata.

The dating methods also came after the fact and were in a way similar to the experiment of early 17 century Flemish physician and chemist Dr. Jan Baptista von Helmont. Dr. von Helmont developed an experiment to justify the idea of spontaneous generation which Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. had embraced. In his classic experiment the Dr. describes proof that mice were spontaneously generated from dirty underwear and wheat over a period of two weeks.[15] The experiment verified Aristotle’s conclusion without really delving into the obvious problems of spontaneous generation. “Trying to prove what other scientists already believe is actually bad science. It leads to an artificial body of knowledge, which becomes self-supporting and circular in its proofs.”[16] It wasn’t until 1668, 28 years after von Helmont’s death that Dr. Francesco Redi, an Italian physician and scientist, proved spontaneous generation wrong with his cheesecloth over the rotting meat experiment. Later in 1859, the same year in which the Origins was published, “Louis Pasteur, the French chemist, began a series of experiments with the intention of ending the various opinions of his day regarding spontaneous generation. With his experiments, he refuted the theory of spontaneous generation”[17], though Neo-Darwinians have raised it back to life with their abiogenesis theory.

Today’s modern dating methods all too often appear like von Helmont’s experiment which was made only to justify an already believed dogma. The dating methods are not carefully calculated and analyzed for their possible faults. The evolutionary scenario of millions of years is believed to be true and therefore a confirmation of such is sought out. The dating methods are accepted because they confirm the already believed dates. The initial assumptions are not looked at critically and therefore bias results could and do occur as has been discovered by the recent RATE report amongst many others. See the following link: http://www.icr.org/article/fluctuations-show-radioisotope-decay/.[18] Richard Mauger writing about K-Ar dating method ages given to rocks stated, “In general, dates in the correct ballpark are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are the discrepancies fully explained.”[19]

A real scientist would be open to looking at the data and assumptions of differing scientist to test their theories in order to verify their validity and find out why such above discrepancies exist. Modern evolutionary scientists today often mock the creation scientists rather than carefully considering their work. Evolutionists will not accept the Biblical assumptions as true and therefore reject creation science outright. An objective scientist would not see the creation scientist’s assumptions as any different from an evolutionary scientist’s assumptions and would be willing to give them both due considerations. However, since evolutionary assumptions are of a religious nature and evolutionist’s religious beliefs are being threatened, the evolutionary scientist does not take lightly to giving creation science any due objectivity. As a result we end up with ideological prejudice and not real objective scientific thinking.

An interesting documentary on objective scientific thinking, ideological prejudice and academic freedom is Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g. Dr. William Lane Craig’s comments about the film further pursue the ideas of naturalism and the ideological prejudices and lack of academic freedom in the American Academic Community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kstf4qeDsMA. It is interesting that Dr. Craig notices how the atheist Richard Dawkins is willing to accept that there is design in nature. Dawkins goes on to say that the design we see may be a result of aliens “seeding” the first life forms on planet earth and not an act of God. He emphasizes that of course the alien life itself was a result of Darwinian or naturalistic processes. In other words, he is saying that “intelligent design” that we see in nature is not an indication of an intelligent God creator/designer, but the result of random causeless natural processes, naturalism. As a true atheist Dawkins holds steadily to his naturalistic assumptions necessary to negate God’s existence.

It was back in the beginning of the 19th century when Biblical interpretations began to be seen as unscientific. Naturalism became accepted as the philosophy of science and religion, as we have discussed above. Men began to reject traditional Biblical interpretations, although few men admitted that it was because of the restrictive moral implications forced on society by the religious institutions. However, from the time of the French Revolution there was a new awakening in man’s desire to be a free moral agent, following his own dictates rather than those imposed upon him by ancient institutions as we have seen in the writings of Thomas Paine. With the new catch phrases ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ men wanted to be free from the laws of touch not, taste not, think not, etc. Religion was seen by many as a hindrance to intellectual progress and, therefore, political and scientific progress.

Naturalism was embraced because it eliminated God from scientific inquiry and at the same time freed man from the moral confines that religion demanded. If the world around us could be explained by purely naturalistic means, man would not need to invoke the help of the supernatural and could in a sense free himself from its moral restrictions. Man could be free to act and behave according to his own dictates and not to those of a Book written thousands of years before to an entirely different culture and people. These underlining reasons helped lead to the rejection of Biblical interpretations and were well present during the time of the American and French Revolution at the end of the 18th century.

Later in the 20th century, we see an interesting confession by Aldous Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley was called ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ and was his close friend. He did much to help defend the evolutionary theory at its beginnings. He is also credited with winning the famous Evolution/Creation debate against abolitionist William Wilberforce. Huxley did more to defend evolution than Darwin himself and invented the word ‘agnostic’ to describe his own religious beliefs.[20] However, it is interesting to note that he was not totally convinced of Darwin’s mechanism for evolution, as neither was Charles Lyell, much to Darwin’s dismay.

In 1960, grandson Aldous Huxley, one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century and author of The Brave New World spoke honestly about his hidden sexual agenda. He said, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world (and this is what evolution ultimately teaches) is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do (moral freedom is the goal, to be free from religion’s restrictive confines). For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."[21]

So here we see Aldous Huxley confessing that his rejection of a creator and his support of atheistic/naturalistic philosophy stemmed from his desire for sexual liberty. The Apostle Peter in prophetic words had said the following some 1900 years before: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,(sexual liberty) and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.’ (Uniformitarianism teaches that the present natural processes are the same continuous processes that have acted in the past.) For thus they are willing ignorant of (or refuse to see) that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”[22] In other words, they are willingly ignorant of the creation act by God and the historical global catastrophic flood of Noah.

What has happened down through the centuries is that the false hypocritical religious systems have driven men from God. As men rejected God, they became proud in mind and their foolish hearts became darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they in fact became fools believing in the illogical and contradictory. They invented new religious myths, clothed in scientific jargon, which proposed to bring them freedom but in the end brought them into a new bondage. As Apostle Peter has said, “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage.”[23] Being freed from the religious hypocrisy of the past, man has been forced into the heartless arms of naturalistic philosophy and has been brought into a new bondage to relative morality and life without meaning, purpose or goal.

Instead of man being made in God’s image, we have become descendants of creeping things, birds and four-footed beats, the Theory of Evolution. Saint Paul prophetically predicted the very same in his letter to the Romans. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beats and creeping things.”[24]

At this point, I would like to look at the speech of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous’ older brother,“a zoologist and one of the scientific founders of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, the modern version of Darwin’s theory. He was also the promoter of a naturalistic religion called evolutionary humanism, and the founding secretary general of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In short, Julian Huxley was one of the most influential intellectuals of the mid-twentieth century, and 1959 (the 100 year anniversary of Darwin’s book) was the high-water mark of his influence. Here are some excerpts from Huxley’s remarks at the centennial:”[25]

“Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours-the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself…. This is one of the first public occasions which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values-indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution……In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.”[26]

Phillip Johnson makes the following comment in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds in reference to the above quote: “In short, the triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God and set the stage for replacing biblical religion with a new faith based on evolutionary naturalism. That new faith would become the basis not just of science but also of government, law and morality. It would be the established religious philosophy of the modern world.”[27] Indeed, this is what has happened.

Most people today do not realize they have bought into naturalistic assumptions by accepting the Big Bang and the General Theory of Evolution. Naturalism is so strongly accepted into our society, we no longer reject its tenants conscientiously. Naturalistic assumptions have become the framework for our modern thinking and educational system. We do not realize that the scientific modules that we are taught as truths are those modules that assume naturalistic assumptions and steer clear of Biblical ones. These modules assume there is no metaphysical. They assume that past events can be explained by random natural forces happening today.

Let’s look at the Big Bang for a moment. Do we realize that the postulating of the theory of the Big Bang was done in a way to eliminate any assumptions that could appear to uphold a Biblical worldview? That is why when scientists talk about the expansion of the universe they make clear to state that the universe is not expanding from any one point. If it were expanding from a set point, that point could be given significant importance. The Biblical history of the creation week puts the earth in a position of importance in the universe. Modern scientists have formulated the Big Bang theory in a way to purposely avoid having any position in the universe more important than any other position in the universe. 

When talking about the Big Bang module, internationally renowned Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis has said, "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center,(like the Biblical module) and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.( He is saying he does not think it is wrong to exclude a module on philosophical grounds, because that is what he does when he excludes any element in the module that correlates to a Biblical module.) What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."[28] But at least he confesses up to what he does. 

An interesting alternative to the Big Bang theory is Dr. Russell Humphreys’ module. He uses the same mathematical equations and the same physics as the evolutionary scientist but starts with different assumptions, ones that are in line with the Biblical interpretation of creation rather than the naturalistic assumptions. It can be seen on the YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCK8y4RBeWI.

But are the naturalistic assumptions justified. We need to review the first tenant of the philosophy of naturalism.

1. Only the natural world exists. There is no metaphysical.

Is this a true statement? Does the metaphysical or supernatural exist? I believe most people in the world today, even after many years of evolutionary indoctrination will still say that the supernatural exists. I believe that most people reading this will agree that they believe in the supernatural to some extent. They may not have had a supernatural experience themselves, but they know someone who has or have heard of someone who has. The New Testament is a whole book written by men each of whom claimed to have had a supernatural experience. The New Age Movement and all the religions of the world are founded on the tenant that there is a supernatural. They have been founded by men who claimed to have experienced it and who try to relate their experience to others.

But, as a reaction against the false superstitions of the past and the religious hypocrisy and moral restrictions of the religious element placed upon society, modern man has changed the definition of science to mean only the natural processes by which we can explain the world around us. Modern day science has thereby eliminated God from the discussion and conned mankind into accepting its naturalistic philosophy without mankind even realizing it.

Mankind is left with Science as God. We even see in the New Age Movement the tendency to use scientific terminology when talking of the supernatural. They may use terms like the ‘universal life force,’ a kind of scientific spirituality. People are more open to accept a new belief system if it is scientifically robed. Mankind has faith in Science. However, in the end, mankind’s new faith, scientific naturalism, answers not his questions of meaning and purpose in life and the reason for death. He hungers for he knows not what, only knowing that his new found faith, though having granted him sexual license, has not filled that aching void within his heart. He is left filled with froth, but empty deep within. It may cause him to commit suicide, or become a terrorist or live a life of debauchery. Or, he may just conform to a meaningless existence while deep down within his heart aches and cries for answers. Will anyone hear his cry?

Few people realize a war is taking place. It is a spiritual war for the hearts and minds of men. In 1905 the document called the Protocols containing the plans for World Government was made public in a Russian publication. Members of the Illuminati, who believe that Lucifer is the true son of God and that Jesus is the counterfeit, have forged a plan for the eventual takeover of the planet. Henry Ford, the famed auto pioneer said, “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are at least sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.”[29]

I do not want to get into the Protocols too deeply at this time as they are a large subject in themselves. However, here is a quote to get your interest and to further confirm what I have argued above. “The masses are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. (In other words, the masses are led by theories and not critical thinking or historical observations.)We need not, therefore, take any account of them-let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastimes, (TV, computer games, sports) or on the memories (old movies?)of all they have enjoyed. For them, let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science. (We have persuaded them to accept the dictates of science by the press which we control.) It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of the press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the masses will puff themselves up with their knowledge and, without any verification of them, (like the evolutionary theory and men like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins) will put into effect all the information available from science, which our special agents (Unless Hawking and Dawkins are the special agents?) have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds (the minds of the masses) in the direction we want. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzche-ism. (Darwin’s success was not an accident, but part of the plan.)To us, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the masses.”[30]

Dr. Henry Morris wrote in his classic book The Long War Against God, “The one thing that all of the influences brought to bear on Charles Darwin seemed to have in common, however, was their strong opposition to biblical Christianity, both before and after publication of the Origins. If there really was a conspiracy involved, therefore, it must have been spiritual.” He goes on to say, “It is nothing less than a new and critical phase in the age long conflict between the only two basic world views. One is centered in the Creator of the world and his redemptive work on behalf of the lost world; the other is centered in the creatures of that world, not only man and his self-oriented goals, but also in the devil himself, who is ultimately behind all rebellion against God.”[31] Apostle Paul said something similar in his letters to the Ephesians, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”[32] Please take heed and become informed.

Do you know the God who created the universe? Have you met Jesus? Call upon Him with all your heart and He will reveal Himself to you. He says, “Call upon me and I will answer you and show you great and mighty things that you know not of.”[33] Paul goes on to tell us, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things; and has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being.”[34]

Please call upon Jesus if you have not done so yet. He stands at the door of your heart waiting to come in and give you peace of mind, heart and spirit. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”[35] He wants to have daily fellowship with you and lead you by the hand through the perilous days that are ahead. If you have not received Jesus as yet, you could say a prayer similar to the following: “Dear Jesus, I realize I have gone my own way for these many years. I confused you with the hypocritical false religious system. I sincerely open my life to you. I want to know the truth, no matter how difficult it is for me to receive. I do not want to live in delusion. Open my heart and mind to you, to the Holy Spirit, to your word. Please forgive me for the offenses I have made in my life by being selfish and unloving to others. Cleanse me of all in my life that is not pleasing to you. Help me to follow you where you lead. In Jesus name, I pray.”

 If you have prayed this prayer or one similar, Jesus has answered and has come into your heart. He will continue to work in you as you yield to him. Please pick up a New Testament and make a commitment to read it through. Meditate on its words as you do and let them affect change in your mental habits and ways of thinking. There are answers to those deep questions you have had about life. You do not need to be in confusion or doubt or despair. If you need any help in your spiritual quest and growth, I will be glad to share what I have learned and help you to grow in love and in the knowledge of the word of God and its truth. Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”[36]

Footnotes:

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism

2. Morris, Men of Science-Men of Faith, pg.13.

3. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, pg.242 as quoted from John Hudson Tiner’s Johannes Kepler: Giant of Faith and Science, 1977, i.

4. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science?

5. http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason, Thomas Paine, pg 50.

7. http://books.google.pt/books?isbn=1614581894,The Spurgeon Series 1855 & 1856: Unabridged Sermons In Modern Language , pg 78.

8. http://www.icr.org/article/826/174/ John Morris

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism Gap Theory

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chalmers

11. Ibid

12. Derek Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, 1981, pg. 46 & 47.

13. James H. Shea, “Twelve Fallacies of Uniformitarianism,” Geology 10 (Sept. 1982): 456.

14. Stephen Jay Gould, The Great Scablands Debate, Natural History, Vol. 87:7 (Aug.Sep 1978) pg. 12-14.

15. Dr. Carl Werner, Evolution the Grand Experiment, Audio Visual Consultants, 2007, page 12.

16. Ibid, pg. 22.

17. Ibid, pg. 16-19.

18. http://www.icr.org/article/fluctuations-show-radioisotope-decay/

19. Richard Mauger, K-Ar ages of biotich from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol 15:1, 1977, pg.37.

20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

21. Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19.

22. 2 Peter 3:3-6, the New Testament.

23. 2 Peter 2:19, the New Testament.

24. Romans 1:21-23, the New Testament.

25. Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, IVP, 1997, pg. 98.

26. Ibid, pg. 98-99.

27. Ibid, pg. 99.

28. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55; http://www.big-bang-theory.com/.

29. Henry Ford, New York World, February 17, 1921; quoted by Des Griffin, Fourth Reich of the Rich, Emissary Publications, 1976, pg. 209.

30. Ibid, pg. 213.

31. Dr. Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, pg.198 & 199.

32. Ephesians 6:12

33. Jeremiah 33:3

34. Acts 17:24-28

35. Revelation 3:20

36. John 8:31-32

Read More